How do we get corporations out of government.

Large corperations run our government, thay donate huge amounts of money for which they are rewarded. The government no longer represents the people but rather the corporations. We are supposed to be a representitive republic but our needs are not being represented, the corporations are. This is why I'm in the occupy movement, to try and return to our constitution and excercise my rights. We want the government to represent us and not the corporations, they are not people. Everyone thinks we are there to get money from the 1%, while this may be true for many what I have just written is true for me and most in the movement.

Jan 11 2012:
Let me frame your question by establishing a parameter, if I may: Currently in America there are two general schools of thought - one which believes that the corporations influence government and one which believes that government is infringing upon civil liberties through efforts to regulate corporations.

These two schools of thought have come about because we the citizens seem to have forgotten what government is and what it is supposed to do - and that is to protect the citizens and to provide for the common welfare. We cannot have any sort of constructive change until the citizens of the US collectively understand the purpose of their government. To do that, we have to reach an understanding that negates the polarization to either side that I described above.

But to get 3M+ of us to agree on anything seems impossible these days, so let me start with one constructive idea: Remove the idea of "corporate personhood" from our vocabulary. We must not, in any way shape or form, allow corporations to enjoy the same rights and privileges as human entities who live in this country. Corporations are not persons, thus they are not citizens, and consequently they should have no claim to the same protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. This will be an essential first step toward advancing the aim of your question of how to get corporations out of government.

This will also answer both sides - because when you no longer subscribe to the lie that General Motors or PepsiCo or ExxonMobile have the same rights as James Kindler, Michael M, or Verble Gherulous, then you are better emotionally prepared to say, "Regulate 'em to the hilt!"

Jan 11 2012:
Saying, "Regulate them to the hilt," might feel good, but it is not quite so simple. Remember regulation = coercion. Coercion costs money which must be paid by extracting the cost of enforcement from someone else, and is potentially immoral. While corporations are not people, they do represent people and so any careless exercise of regulation is dangerous. The free market has gotten a bad rep principally because it has been distorted by government supported monopolies and intervention. The purpose of government at all is becoming questionable. A majority, if not all of the services once believed to be better served by government can now be performed with far less friction and more effectively by groups of independent people who have a direct stake in their successful execution. The concept that 'we need' government is a myth perpetuated by the establishment, and by those programmed by the establishment from birth. It's time to look at things in a new way. Governments have promised to take care of this and that in return for submission. Government's track record has not earned the loyalty it has to the idea of its continuation.

Jan 11 2012:
Ok, so does that mean if government is irrelevant that you do not want any government services at all? Shall we cut off your water, sewage, and lights? Are you willing to go fight individually in Afghanistan? Who will finance projects like road repair? How will laws be made and enforced? Speaking of which, are you willing to become a policeman for your family?

Government is necessary for the rule of law and for civil society to be just that civil. It does not need to be abolished, just unleashed from corporate chains.

Jan 11 2012:
Regulation, when appropriate, is not coercion. Government itself is merely an entity that, when working correctly, represents the people. Corporations do not represent people, they represent financial interests. What most people do not understand is that government most often makes reactionary laws, that is, laws intended to correct a current problem. Example: the only reason why fire exits exist is because people burned to death in locked warehouses a century ago. Corporations will never have a concern for anything but financial solvency; government is at least supposed to have a directive to consider the well-being of the people.

You are absolutely correct in that we do need to look at our government in a new way, honestly and openly,to determine if it is doing right by the people. If we find that government is imposing unfair laws, then we must seek a redress of grievances. But this discussion is about the unfair influence that corporations hold in government decisions, which I must humbly say is not addressed in your reply.

And I'll admit that "regulate them to the hilt" was a bit tongue in cheek. I'm for adequate and appropriate regulation, as I do believe in fair market competition. We just need to make sure that it is fair.

Jan 12 2012:
Verbie, I'm sorry to disagree with you on this but I think it's important that we begin to completely reexamine our beliefs about what is right and what is wrong in this world. Regulation is ALWAYS coercion no matter how 'appropriate' it may seem to be. "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force…" George Washington. Government can never operate TRULY morally. It has at its core a flawed concept that it is 'ok' for a group of people to force another group of people to do something or to abstain from doing something. Whenever you vote for a politician, you are voting for one group of guys to work for you to impose your beliefs on another group. No matter how large the group, they can NEVER honestly 'represent' the people, they can only represent a group of people. It is never morally correct to force anyone to do something he is unwilling to do, except where the action of the one or the group is impeding on another person or groups same right of expression. Now I know that what I'm saying creates a challenging situation. How can we deal with all of the things people do wrong in the world without some third party, authority to intervene and make it right? Exactly how I don't know, but that we do need to reconsider the basis for a tax-driven government as the solution is certain to me. I understand that many 'good' things have seemingly come out of this system, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't stop and question its soundness when we recognize the inherent flaw in its operation.

Jan 12 2012:
Don, you are absolutely correct in your assessment that government must continually be re-evaluated and questioned. A well-informed electorate cannot be co-opted, just as a literate public can not be controlled.

Perhaps on the other point we disagree on the tone (but not the meaning) of coercion. I view coercion as X making Y bend to X's will for X's benefit alone. For example: Coporation Y dumps chicken fecal matter in river which poses a health risk to a city of 300,000 in the next state. The legal system (government) fines company and the legisature (government) makes a law that says, "Hey, neither Corp Y nor any other can dump chicken fecal matter in a stream" - that is not coercion: that's public health policy.

Goes back to what I said before - America is caught in this either/or (Corps Bad vs. Gvmt Bad) philosophy, and you are entirely correct that we need to reframe our thought and essentially retake our government (in a positive way). Government can never operate morally, because it is not a human being, but it can represent our interests only so long as we make our interests known.

Jan 14 2012:
Don, I am sorry, but I find your 'why should I' line of debate unhelpful. You did not answer Michael's questions. Are you happy to forgo all state intervention? Sewage, state eduction, an impartial judiciary? Is the stop sign and the traffic light coercion too?

I find we often come across this idea that living in a social group cooperatively is about 'coercion' from people whose society has become so high in crime and economically split, that it has led them to feel extremely cut off, distrustful, and isolated from their fellow people. You should rail against such as system as it costs you big on a daily basis in milliions of small and not so small ways. You should seek to change such an unfair system, not advocate for it.

Jan 15 2012:
the incessant desire for lower taxes and less regulation is, in a word, unpatriotic. don't you love and trust your country and the people in it?? big government is there to even the playing field of the free-market free-for-all that your country is entrenched in. if america really is the greatest nation ever, shouldn't it, at the very least, be able to provide the base necessities to all of its citizens, no questions asked?

Jan 20 2012:
@Verble Gherulous
Are public health policy and coercion mutually exclusive concepts? I think not. Public health policy certainly is coercion and it is an example of why coercion is sometimes necessary and morally good. An even better example would be the punishment of crime.

I also notice that some people make an a priori judgment, i.e. coercion is bad, which they refuse to alter despite evidence to the contrary. Of course coercion is generally undesirable, but that doesn't mean it's undesirable in every circumstance. It is strange that this should be a matter of debate, because not even the most hardened libertarian will look you in the eye and say that criminals should not be held in (private) jail because that is coercion and coercion is bad. The debate should focus on under which circumstances individuals and groups of individuals may be coerced into doing something they will not undertake voluntarily, i.e. when coercion ultimately increases liberty or decreases it.

Jan 15 2012:
Sorry for not replying sooner. My sleep/wake schedule is very different than most people in the US. To answer Michael M's question, I am happy to have personally shed the myth that those services can only be provided by government. I also want to make clear that my purpose is to move the conversation towards honestly evaluating our beliefs and behaviors about what is right and wrong. If everyone were to do what was morally right, all the time, there would be no conflict. Obviously that's not where we are as a species. The fact that each person acts with more or less degrees of 'moral correctness' makes behavior choices for everyone more difficult. Most people choose the easy route. They don't think, they just follow what has always been done, assuming that it must be correct because it's always been that way. As you know, often what has always been done doesn't represent moral correctness, it represents the benefit of the incumbent power and incumbent system. I cannot consider the question of how to get corporations out of government, without first examining what form government should take. How it will be funded? What functions it should be relegated, etc. Without knowing the answers to these deeper questions, it seems like putting the cart before the horse to address the other question.

Jan 15 2012:
Hi Don, I dont think it is a 'myth that those services can only be provided by government.' only that it perhaps may not be wise, to entrust certain duties to the stewardship of the profit motive. The judiciary springs to mind, roads, drinking water, clean air....I could keep going....but I think you get my point.

Are you willing to defend your idea regarding coercion? Is a stop sign coercion? How about interest on a debt? What about compound credit card interest? How about insurance premiums? What about when they put those up without notifying you, or for not good reason at all except the CEO's daughter is getting married and she has expensive tastes. Is that coercion?

Jan 17 2012:
Don
Thanks for finally answering. I mean ok, I am not willing to forgo those things for a society run by selfish individuals. Individualism is not only overrated, but pase. Rugged individualism never delivered. It is time we understood the real power of community in our world. It is community, not individuals that makes a difference. If you think there is chaos now, try operating under your system. By the way, I do not want to be a policeman, and I am not sure I want you being one either.

Jan 15 2012:
@Verbie: I completely agree with you on: "…government must continually be re-evaluated and questioned. A well-informed electorate cannot be co-opted, just as a literate public can not be controlled." I am truly UNCERTAIN about what form society should take. I believe it is within our grasp to form the world in a way where people can more easily follow their heart's passion rather than feel compelled to run on the hamster wheel. I work hard and have for years but I don't judge someone who doesn't want to work so hard. I don't judge someone who wants to completely drop out and do nothing. I would like a world where people can pursue their passion (or not) and regardless can enjoy a minimum, quality standard of living. I think it's within our grasp with technology. I don't believe that people are inherently and typically selfish. Research has shown, and I believe logic dictates that two kinds of people, in varying degrees of expression, emerge from childhood based on whether they grew up in an environment of scarcity or abundance. That is not to say their aren't' outliers on both sides, or that genetic predispositions don't have some bearing, but predominantly each person will develop different attitudes and coping strategies based on their particular formative environmental circumstances. My point is, as a society, the best shot we have at making the world a better, more peaceful place is by pushing to raise the minimum living standard of everyone on Earth while being careful not to overlook systemic issues that may carry the seeds of future failure within them. I also think we don't need government or corporations or judges to decide if it's right for bankers – starting with the Federal Reserve to take the money and run (in all the ways they do). No. Not at all. It's wrong and we should be looking at righting that wrong first. If it weren't for that massive theft, we wouldn't be looking at whether corporations influence government too much or not.

Jan 11 2012:
i wouldn't say i forgot government's supposed role. i believe this role can not be achieved, no matter how hard any government tries.

more interesting is your point about corporate personhood. i tend to agree with the first part of your reasoning. only people can be persons. only people have rights. corporations are just legal constructs made by people, they are forums of cooperation. so they can not be treated anyhow else.

but being able to freely regulate them does not follow the premises. actually it contradicts them. since corporations are not persons, and has no rights, they also can't have property. they don't do anything. they don't make decisions. only owners of the company, the people who have created it through contract, can have property, make decisions and act. property of the corporation is in fact property of the owners. decisions of the corporation is in fact the decisions of the owners. and for that, if you regulate the corporation, you in fact regulate the owners. you regulate people.

Jan 12 2012:
Verble, I agree with you when you say that a lot of people have forgotten the role of government, including those who actively serve in government. Krisztian, I must say you are a perfect example of this. You say you havn't forgot government's "supposed" role, but one of governments primary roles is to establish rules and regulations on behalf the majority of the people, and enact it into law to protect their well being. Obviously this is not happening.... Think about what would happen if the rules and regulations of the road were not enacted. Could you imagine paying a toll on EVERY road you drove on because it was privately owned?

Ending corporate personhood is always a noble suggestion, but it's only scratching at the surface of a much bigger core issue... Money. IT"S NOT REAL. It's no more real than the earth is flat. It's a tradition, a myth, a belief system, a religion, a corrupt moral value system that has been used to control the masses over the generations. Just as we must all open our eyes to the fact that the government, in it's entirety, is a civil service organization, responsible to the people and held responsible by the people. We must also make ourselves consciously aware of that fact that WE THE PEOPLE give money it's value.

We are smarter than this. We are better than this. There is a better system than one that celebrates greed before it celebrates good deeds. There is a better system than one wherein for a few to be rich many must suffer. Forget about corporate personhood. Ask yourself this. Am I really willing to be a part of a system that says "above all else live by the golden rule. (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you) unless it effects your bottom line."?

Jan 20 2012:
Krisztian, I am replying here to your comment re the homesteading principle and racism, as we seem to be out of reply opportunities on most of these threads.

So under the homesteading principle, you concede that all lands would be returned to the indigenous tribes who first occupied them? Even if a tribe could demonstrate that Texas in its entiretyy was used and developed by them as a hunting ground, scattered with their settlement sites, and crisscrossed with their nomadic access routes? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Jan 15 2012:
@Joanne I did not suggest that the services be provided by the profit motive. I am proposing that we need to reconsider at a fundamental level the entrenched but POSSIBLY flawed belief that those services can only be provided by a central government when that system forces the residents of a particular geographic territory to cough up to pay for those services without choice. Every instance of a centralized government throughout history has ultimately failed. I'm saying it would be a good idea to apply our collective intelligence to construct a system that does not require stealing from one group to provide to another, or even for the collective benefit of the entire group. The Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. quote - Taxes are the price we pay for civilization, sounds good, but it's not necessarily true and in fact, it feels wrong to me. Taxes is a euphemism for stealing. No matter how good the cause, having theft as the basis for providing the service is the wrong way to solve the problem.

@Derek I think it is base to appeal to patriotism. I am proud of everyone throughout history who has fought for what is right. I love everyone regardless of what patch of dirt they happen to occupy. I will just as quickly defend anyone, anywhere who is oppressed by any form of tyranny whether it comes in the form of a corporation, government or a mugger on the street. It is dangerous to be too attached to any institution regardless of how noble their cause. At the end, it is the thoughts and behaviors of the participants in any institution that magnifies the good ideas or perverts them. America has attracted great people to her because she has historically offered a better place to live than most places on Earth. It is, and has always been the people of America that has made it great more so than its government. It is always a good idea to improve and continue to set an example for the rest of the world of a better way to conduct our society.

Jan 17 2012:
Yes Don, I am not arguing for failed models of centralised govt. I agree with much of what you say, and your obvious commitment to peace and equality puts us on the same side, in my book, but I strongly disagree with the notion that taxes are stealing.

Interest, especially compound interest, that perhaps fits the concept of theft by misappropriation and deception better if we look objectively.

To assess the value of taxation, one has to look at society as a whole. Roads, infrastructure, the consumer base, hospitals, everything that makes up our civilisation was built by the sweat of our grandparents, ancestors or those who came before us. It was bequeathed to us and when we utulise those resources, we must also pay for that privilege, in order to keep them intact and to maintain them for future generations.

Your sentiments on patriotism are wonderful, and I agree wholeheartedly. I too am from a patch of dirt and blue water called planet earth. I am loyal and patriotic to that piece of dirt, and everything that inhabits it. Every country I have lived in, has been wonderful and had so much to offer.

I'm not debating whether some money taxed (FORCIBLY TAKEN) from a group of people isn't used for potentially benign purposes, possibly even benefitting every member in a society. I'm saying that FORCING people to pay for anything they didn't agree to is immoral.

Jan 17 2012:
Don, I feel I am FORCED to pay unfair interests on my debts because all the banks collude to fleece us, I feel COERCED because the banks collude with govts to allow systems of lending which amount to usury and to keep out other options.

I feel FORCED to have health insurance in a country where the govt has been given a clear mandate by the people to supply free and equitable healthcare but private healthcare enterprises work in behind the scenes to erode the system so we need supplemenary healthcare. I feel COERCED when those premiums go up without warning, and for no other reason than my age. I feel afraid to make a claim, in case they hold me or my family to ransom for the rest of my life. AND I will fight tooth and nail to resist this backward and inhumane system becoming the norm in my country as it has in yours.

Now you are suggesting FURTHER privatisation because that would be what 'voluntary' taxation would mean. You have examples of the failure of that idea all around you everyday, its a failed model by anyone's standards.

Look into the face of the next unwell homeless person you meet. Actually humble yourself and sit down for a chat. His or her story could break your big kind heart, and it could by yours story Don, or your child's. That is not a system, humane, kind hearted people should advocate.

Jan 18 2012:
Joanne, I don't believe it's an either or thing. I don't think that if we remove taxes (FORCED participation in a government provided, scheme) that we have to abandon a method of payment that is agreed to by everyone in a particular community.

Banks represent the height of awful, horrible human behavior. They are enabled by a gang of (FORCED) tax-supported crooks aka politicians, who have not only forsaken their job of providing the currency of our country, but don't even do another of their other jobs, that of providing justice for all of the incredible crimes the banks, and more specifically the individuals like Jon Corzine, who should be removed from society for as long as it takes for them to learn how to be better people.

As regards to homeless people, I have known many in my life. I do not judge people by their station in life. I have respect and love for everyone on Earth. For a short time I was homeless. I have a close friend whom, without my assistance, might be homeless today. I support him because I enjoy the feeling of supporting him and I value his friendship. I have always given freely of whatever I had. I'm sure I would be a lot better off, as far as my NAV, if I weren't the way I am. The point is, I choose charity. I choose participation in projects. I pay endless taxes, directly and indirectly only because someone will deprive me of my freedom if I don't pay them. Taxation is immoral.

Don. Suppose you were born into a tribal community which for generations has had the custom of collecting 10% of the agricultural production of each individual in order to provide for those who were unable to farm. Moreover, if you were unwilling to make the contribution, you would be forced out of the community.

Jan 18 2012:
Don't you think 'hand me the cash or die' is a bit melodramatic? I don't think anyone here would advocate a social system that recommended the death penalty for tax evasion. Perhaps your view of societies where people are reliant on collective systems is a little too dark?

Jan 18 2012:
@Tim Colgan to me, the length of the FORCED compliance doesn't change the immorality of it. FORCING someone to pay or expelling them from the community if they don't, is the part I find immoral.

@Joanne Donovan regarding Krisztián Pintér's abbreviated representation of the ultimatum is factually correct. I have watched for over 25 years various good people who have challenged the validity of the income tax, be jailed and/or murdered directly or indirectly by various, wonderful, loving, and oh-so-special and caring government officials. I love paying taxes that enable special people to deny the common serfs free expression.

Jan 18 2012:
joanne, i'm aware that some people does not like parallels or metaphors. my point was, in plain words, that some choices are not indeed choices. money or die is not a real choice, thought it has an "or" in it. it is a threat. the state does not allow the ruled citizens to leave the system. obey or leave is not a real choice, it is a threat. it is not even similar to the similar looking scenario of a phone service provider saying pay or leave. in that case, you actually can leave, with other aspects of your life untouched. buying that service is optional. you are free to negotiate terms. and you have to explicitly make a contract for the service. this contract regulates your relationship, and the provider has no right to interfere with your life outside the scope of that contract. that is a free choice. being the "customer" of the state is enforced by police and prison guards.

Jan 18 2012:
Don (and Krisztian). This whole rhetoric of “it’s immoral to force people to pay taxes” seems to me like no more than some libertarian drone which lacks any rational foundation. Oh yes, it’s very gratifying to be able to say “no one’s going to force me to do what I don’t want to do”. But societies don’t work that way. Societies do coerce their members into conforming to certain standards of behavior.

At a minimum most people are going to opt for having a government which will protect them from physical attack. This has to be paid for. The idea that each individual is going to be able to decide for themselves whether or not to pay the taxes necessary to support it wishful thinking.

But really guys. If you think that your conceived system (i.e - no government forced taxation) is so much superior, why don’t you focus on establishing one nation where your ideas can be proven out? I had suggested Texas in a previous conversation. I’m sure the people there can be persuaded to try out your scheme. A lot of people were hoping on Iraq being the proving ground, but that one didn’t seem to work out too well. And there are those that who consider Somalia as an example of functioning libertarian society (I’ll dig up a Stefan Molyneux video if you’re interested).

But my main question is - if society would function so much better without government, why haven’t government free societies emerged and prospered?

Jan 18 2012:
tim, pay keen attention to the precise formulation of your statements. "society" is a collectivist term. it can not act, it can not have reasons. we can describe how society works, that is a good term for that. but it is not an actor, not an acting agent.

people form groups. when a group is formed, the people that form the group discuss and agree on the rules of the membership. they can more or less freely join or leave groups. and although these groups can have apparent characteristics, these are entirely determined by the members and their cooperation.

a good society is mobile and dynamic. there are many co-existing and overlaying groups, and you are free to move between. groups can not force you, enslave you, command you. the biggest punishment they can put on members, against their will, is exclusion.

in case of today's taxation, is not "society" enforcing it. it is the state that does. the state does that with the approval of the majority. none of these makes initiation of force acceptable. robbery is robbery whether the offender called "state" or not, and regardless of the number of people supporting it.

please dig up the molyneux video that calls somalia as a functioning libertarian society.

answer to last question: why true democracies emerged in the late 19th centuries? why slavery was widespread for many thousand years? why woman rights are so new? you deny the possibility of doing the wrong thing until we find out how to do it right, then change? (hint: you are in the denial phase.)

Jan 18 2012:
Tim, I'm surprised that you portray the idea that a person have a choice about whether to participate in a system of paid services as lacking any rational foundation.

What you appear to be saying is that if a group of people get together for their mutual protection (and whatever other services they deem necessary), that if they draw up a contract and sign it. Then it's OK for them to make everyone else pay for it, whether they agree with it or not. Is that what you're saying? Is that rational?

Tim, your whole tone seem to be hostile – especially by your comments regarding setting up in Texas. I think you were suggesting execution in your last post regarding Texas. Am I reading you right? If so, why hostility? Isn't this supposed to be a peaceful forum for exchanging ideas and learning by intelligent debate? I certainly mean no hostility towards you.

Since you attempt to invalidate the concept of a society built around a system of voluntary participation in paying for the services of the society, by pointing out that there SEEMS to be no other societies that have emerged and prospered under such an arrangement, it seems only fair that I ask you a similar question. Can you point out any other contract that would be considered valid if all parties don't agree to the terms?

Jan 18 2012:
I really have to agree with Tim here. This "contract" Don, doesn't really exist. We live in a country, in a society that is ruled by law. Congress made those laws, including taxes, and Congress can change them. But the absurdity is that someone is forcing you to do this. Go out and change the law. Of course what would happen is the collapse of society and sometimes I think that is exactly what your type of thinking wants. It wants the collapse of a society built around laws. The system may be flawed, but how do you think you would really, honestly "fix" it by allowing your form of uncontrolled individualism to rule?

Jan 18 2012:
Kriztian, 'society' 'can not act, it can not have reasons.'

Society cannot act, but the state CAN reason and act, it can even commit robbery? So the state IS a single acting agent capable of understanding the concept of theft and acting on it? Can a football team be accused of commiting an act of robbery, what about a classroom of kids? You contradict yourself, and your logic cannot stand up to scrutiny. If you cannot supply a definition of theft, robbery and of ownership which you are prepared to adhere to, which can stand up to logical scrutiny, I do not see how you can participate in a discussion on social theory, or extrapolate a convincing model.

SOMALIA as a functioning libertarian society? Is that all you have got SOMALIA? Need I remind you, genital mutulation is considered a coming of age ceremony in that country for girls any age from babyhood to adolescence. This brutal practice, one of the worst things humans have ever engaged in, has been practiced for centuries. Where is your perfect Utopian equaility that is supposed to materialise in perfect libertarian societies?

Don, you did not answer my questions regarding taxation and charity. I cannot consider your idea that 'taxation is immoral' unless you are willing to defend it in the context of poverty.

Jan 18 2012:
Kristian
You make a huge jump when you say the state is not society. Of course it is. It is the construct we have created in order to govern ourselves, provide necessary services and keep the rule of law.

Tim is right again the wild west, the rugged individual are dead. They never functioned to govern society. They never will. You believe a myth I think. A myth promulgated by selfish individuals who think the world centers on their wants and needs not on our wants and needs. Community is one of mankinds greatest achievments. Common: those things, thoughts, possessions, land, values, worldviews we share. Unity: onenees, togetherness, the need for others.

Forget the myth that has never worked and never will. In some zombie apocalypse, made up world perhaps, but not where there are human beings. We are more than our own measure of things.

How do we get coporations out of government? : Work on changing the laws we live by in community.

first, i said in the same comment that when state acts, it actually means that majority acts. people who vote for politicians act. they approve what the state does. they act through the state. the state actually can do things, but it is just a shortcut for us to say that police does, which is again a shortcut for a policeman does. but that is not exactly interesting. what is interesting is the source of the power. and that is the ignorant majority.

second. somalia being a libertarian state is not my position. i don't believe that. tim believes. and i requested some backup for that.

Jan 18 2012:
I can't improve on Michael Ms last post, and I am out of thumbs up. Krisztian, I think his position is unassailable.

The conflict we seem to regurgitate whatever the subject of the thread, like rude guests arguing over old family disputes at someone else's wedding, (its fun though) boils down to the fact you think society/the collective is wrong, ugly and dangerous, where I/we believe it is the natural order, beautiful and the only path to safe civilisation. I/we seek to build it up, protect it, cherish it and develop it and you seek to destroy it....irrevocably.

I would really love you to relate to us, what you hope to gain from the destruction of society? Please take the floor and extrapolate the outcome.

Jan 19 2012:
Michael and Joanne: who is we? I am not part of your "we". If you amongst this "we" have chosen to govern yourselves, I have no problem with that. You think this is necessary; while I disagree, I am happy for you to try what you would like to try. What I am confused about is where this "we" have the arrogance and selfishness to declare that their desires are more important than anybody else's.

I am not even clear on whether this "we" is a large number. The OECD estimates that half the world's working population is making some or all of their living in the informal/black/gray markets - outside the practical reach of regulation or taxation (see http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/11/01/the-black-market-is-the-second-largest-economy-in-the-world/). These people apparently are not part of the "we" who choose to have their business relationships governed. Who are you to declare that they should be part of this "we" of yours? By what premise do your priorities trump theirs?

For that matter, what about my priorities? Suppose I am a member of some anarchist collective who chooses a stateless society. Will this "we" of yours gladly step aside and leave us be? Be honest now. Do you really believe in this claim to legitimacy and solidarity, or would you gladly see our society obliterated and brought back into the fold? More to point, if your state decided to do this regardless of your wishes, would you stand with us? Stand with the state? Or merely stand aside? Where is this moral hill you stand upon located?

Jan 20 2012:
Justen
Thanks for your comments and questions. Who is the we of which I speak?

Where to start. First, yes, you Justen are part of the "we" represented by what I say, whether or not you claim to be or not. The we includes all who choose to live in a society. Society is multi-form as you point out. And as you point there are different degrees of relationship. (I could go on here, but won't) The simple fact is by deciding to live in a society you form part of the we of that society, whether you are marginalized by choice, or chance.

I do not speak from arrogance, but from a communal standpoint. I do not wish to impose on your freedoms, but by living in society all of us decide to accept those common impositions described by law. I am no anarchist or libertarian. I am one who sees the necessity of government and understands its relative position in the world. We do decide through elected officials how to live together. It is called the rule of law, and no libertarian answer to this rule of law has been yet forthcoming on this post.

The black market economy you mention is an interesting example. Yes, millions around the world contribute (please note my word) to the overall economy by their "out of bounds" business. Their premise is actually much closer to mine than you think. They are in the society, they do contribute, albeit not through taxation, and again by choice they are part of a larger society.

Cogito ergo sum, was the the worst thing anyone ever said. It created a mentality in the West, now brought to its logical conclusion, that "I, me, mine" is the center of all being. Libertarian thought, "you have no right to tell me anything" is the logical conclusion to that statement. It was wrong when Descartes said it, it is wrong now. This world, the real one we live in is not based on the existence or the thought of one person, but on the structured, self-constructed, chaotic, going to hell in a handbasket, society we string together as humans

Jan 20 2012:
Michael: the main objection I have to this statement, other than points of fact, is that you're conflating state with society. I am a part of many societies, and they in turn a part of humanity as a whole; however, no single government represents, or even claims to represent, most of the societies I am in - nor are they governed by any state. A participatory community does not a ruler make. When we come together to start a project, those of us interested participate; those who are uninterested do not. No-one is compelled to render aid, and unpopular ideas are not quashed for lack of majority support. We don't "elect officials to decide how we may [work] together". What we have is a community.

What you are talking about is not community. You are talking about a relative handful of people getting what they want when they want it, at gunpoint if necessary. I have no more community with people in Washington, D.C. or in my city hall than I do with some random warlord in Somalia. At various times and places, many people have claimed to represent me and my goals, or to be looking out for my best interests. Almost all of them have been liars, from the president of the United States to the Pope to the Dali Lama to various misguided revolutionaries. I have no association with them. They cannot represent me simply by fiat, nor rule me because they claim the right to rule. Philosophically, this is absurd, but pragmatically it is also absurd. You follow the law because you choose to, not because you must - at least, not in the same way you must follow the law of gravity.

It actually matters very little to me whether or not you feel I should be a part of your society; I am not. I occasionally cooperate with people who think they are, and that's fine with me. But in so doing I do not accept any implicit or explicit obligation to participate in the whole, whether or not you feel I ought to. Your theories are all very nice, but System D demonstrates the reality.

Jan 18 2012:
Hi Don, how would wealth be distributed in your world without taxation? Do you think that it is realistic to expect charity to fulfill that role, or if you understand that it could never achieve that, then do you accept instead that extremes of poverty are part of the natural order of life?

Jan 18 2012:
Man I really wish I kept up with this thread, it got really intense but good job Joanne, Tim and Micheal M for holding your own but the other positions were very interesting as well.

Your statement about the extremes of poverty being natural really struck me, so I'll state my position in case someone answers it: I would have to say no its no natural and there is much truth to back that up starting with the hunter gather tribes. Many anthropologist stated that they were very affluent being that they never took more than they could carry and would never really waste anything..

Also we see many indigenous tribes and as you stated below, their collective ownership and nomadic lives also did not lead to poverty(at least how we know it).

If you ask me, poverty only occurs when you have some sort of hierarchical system, in which those at the top state they can have it all and those at the bottom are told they cannot have nothing or they'll have to work harder for it.

I was always interested as to how those at the bottom can at often times willingly just follow or allow to themselves to be controlled in such a way. I guess words and ideas are just as powerful as brute force.

Jan 19 2012:
Joanne, to begin with, I like the idea of you asking the "how" questions about a system without taxation. It's far better than simply defending on blind faith the idea that it must remain as it is (ostensibly because it's always been that way). Assuming that the only way to make a system work is to force people to pay into is exactly what I'm challenging.

As to your thoughts regarding poverty, first I don't necessarily agree with your premise that it is an inevitability. Can you provide evidence for this assertion? Secondarily, if it were true that extreme poverty is the natural order of things, there is ample evidence that there is more than sufficient charity to provide for this theoretical segment. In fact, it is the current system (not just the tax system) that prevents more impoverished people from receiving charity.

I'm surprised that so many people are so dogmatic in their protection of the statist system. We have before us a real opportunity to shift power away from the monopoly of force that is the state, to a more dispersed, equitable power. States, which are monopolies of force, always victimize, in varying degrees, those that they are supposed to care for (rule over). States have always ended up corrupting well-meaning people, or attracting sociopaths. They have always broken down to the point where they provide services at a standard lower than free market solutions. Can you name a half dozen things that the US government does well, that couldn't be done better in the free market? If you are able to produce this list, can you then name just one of those things that couldn't be performed better in the free market? By the way, if you're tempted to mention building roads, you need to remember that the funds used to build our roads are actually collected semi-voluntarily since they are an indirect (avoidable, theoretically anyway) tax added to the cost of every gallon of gasoline. Even those "indirect" taxes are wrong because they force people to collect.

Jan 19 2012:
Orlando! Thanks for chiming in I always enjoy your posts. The hierarchal society model you mention is certainly one way poverty is perpetuated in many countries. Sometimes it takes the form of you were "meant" by means of birth to be exactly who you are. Go back and look at an older work, "The Great Chain of Being" to see this explained even more. It is rife in many countries and unfortunately still promulgated in various forms by religious organizations. Another huge reason people just "accept" things is they can see no viable way out of their situation. Face it "universal education" in the States is sometimes only universal classroom fo r12 years. This is the state I think we find ourselves in and the reason we must limit undue influence from corporations who are at their best extremely self-centered.

Don, "the statist system", oh please. I ask you again, what would you replace this with and what sort of governing body would be non-statist? You think that the free market is non-statist? It is just as inefficient, just as wasteful as any government. But you will say how can they be when profits matter? That is the point Don, profit is all that matters. If a chemical company pollutes the air why bother right? It is just making profit. Examine the way the real world, not the world you have made up or just heard about really does work. Profit motive might decrease some waste in the short term, but does nothing about long-term consequences of corporate action. Don honestly where in history is the proof that "the free market" runs better? Show me the examples.

Who says, and yes I am asking for citations, that states are monopolies of force? Why are they and what are the criteria for judging that? How do they always (quite a term) victimize? Which free market solutions do run better than government right now in providing necessary services?

Jan 19 2012:
My friends (I hope I may call us all friends) - I have been away and have glanced over this thread and it seems that what I feared has come to pass: we start off talking about how to get corporate influence out of government and suddenly we're forced into defending government or attacking government as being too restrictive.

I would like to propose this theory: that each of us who has a negative view of government (America in particular and governments in general) have this because we are pre-conditioned by two generations of negative publicity that was promoted by corporations trying to sway public opinion against government, because a representative government without support of the people is pliable, and easily controlled.

You may disagree, fine. But what I'm asking is that we reconsider all our negative views of goverment to examine the possibility that we may have been lied to - not by Uncle Sam, but by Sam's Club.

Jan 19 2012:
The extremes of poverty seem to persist despite the existence of powerful, violent organizations hell bent on inflicting their will on others at any cost. I don't know if they're the "natural state" - that is hard to say, since it's hard to define what is "natural" in human behavior. For instance, it appears that greed and envy and selfishness and the desire to inflict pain and suffering on others who don't agree with us is a part of our "nature"; it also appears that compassion and tolerance and friendship and love and self-sacrifice are strong parts of our nature.

May we have one set of attributes without the other and call it natural? What would a society look like which was built solely upon these latter features? I have never threatened to cage or murder a person I loved if he was not willing to help me in a cause I considered noble; I find that kind of threat to be very unloving, to say the least. I cannot imagine that such a society would feature warfare or prisons or, least of all, politicians. But would this be natural? I'm not sure we could call it that. It seems in our actually existing society the former human features - greed, envy, hatred, oppression, domination, violence - tend to be more prominent, despite promises by the institutions (built and powered by the expressions of those very features) to the contrary.

Jan 19 2012:
@Verble: I am asking you to consider that neither "Uncle Sam" or "Sams Club" are actual entities, but mere collections of individuals, and collections which hold a great number of individuals in common to boot. If I consider the notion that "Sams Club" has lied to me (done and, with the caveat that in fact I am only using that as a symbol to mean a large group of individuals who each have participated in lying to me, I agree), will you also consider my proposal?

I suggest that neither of these two collections are homogeneous masses, and that neither is made up of individuals who are wholly infallible or wholly malevolent. I suggest that individuals have a particular habit of finding a way to equate "good for me" with "good for everyone" when it pleases them, and even when wholly inappropriate. Further, that individuals will tend to act on that conflation, blissfully ignorant of the actual objective consequences. That when those consequences become impossible to ignore, they tend to deny their responsibility (and thus absolve themselves of the duty to make amends). That being a member of one group ("Uncle Sam") or the other ("Sam's Club") does not fundamentally change the nature of individuals. That perhaps it is unwise to wed oneself and one's philosophy to dichotomies between these two groups that are wholly fictitious.

Jan 19 2012:
@Orlando Hawkins: you might enjoy "The Art of not Being Governed", James C. Scott, which proposes some answers, based on anthropological study, to the questions you brought up regarding poverty in indigenous tribes and the mechanisms by which states form and guarantee the submission of their populace. The book may be taken as a bit dry to those who prefer witty one-liners and feel-good quips about society and social problems, but such is the way of one who prefers study to mere consumption :)

Jan 20 2012:
@Justen: proposal already accepted, that neither are actual stand-alone entities, but rather they are collectives with different purposes. The difference between them is that Sam's Club wants me to give them my money in exchange for goods, and Uncle Sam requires my fealty in exchange for protecting my person, my property, and my civil liberties. The other difference is that I am also a part of my government in a way that I am not a part of Sam's Club, in that I am able to serve on a jury of my peers when asked, and thus be a part of the administration of justice, and I can also vote for certain representatives of Uncle Sam; I am not allowed to vote for the CEO of Sam's Club (nor any of old man Walton's creations).

As for your second paragraph I agree that these groups are made of people, fallable and complex and just trying to "make it through" as it were. While I believe people are basically good, they also subsume their individuality in a group, and they will follow whatever group offers them more . . . More of whatever they think they need.

We currently are a nation which truly believes that government is stagnant, ineffective, and overreaching, and that private enterprise offers more freedom. We mistake freedom of choice for civil liberties. And in that aspect, I believe that the groupthink,while not changing an individual's fundamental nature, has certainly made the people compliant.

Wow. I just realized . . . We're consumer junkies. Buying stuff is our drug. Need to let this sink in. Pardon me while I go to Best Buy and get a new flatscreen.

Jan 20 2012:
Ah, but Uncle Sam does not actually deliver on those things, does he - other than permitting your "civil liberties", which is really just a euphemism for a protection racket. For who violates your civil liberties? The state! ROFL! They want you to pay them to make sure "something bad" doesn't happen to you.

If you believe that your problem is consumerism, I invite you so solve it by ceasing or at least reducing your consumer activity. That's not a jab. I agree with you in part, and I'm doing this already. You can do it to. Last year I grew about 10% of my produce in my own garden; this year I expect to grow 30%. I joined a makerspace, where we make and repair many of our own things. I contribute to open source software projects. I donate to projects like Open Source Ecology. I'm reticent to mention these things lest it sound like bragging, but the point is that you do NOT have to simply wait around for someone else to solve your problems. You can begin solving them today, and you don't need permission from the government to do it (in fact, you're better off not mentioning it to them so they don't insert themselves).

This is the trouble with statist thinking - you see a problem, you believe you have an answer, and then you go sit back on your couch and wait for the state to implement your solution. Stop doing that. The state isn't going to help you. It never has. Typically it's the source of your problem (particularly if you accept my proposal that this "corporation" vs "government" thing is a false dichotomy).

If you judge by the outcome, rather than the claimed intent, of any state in human history, its object has been the enrichment of an idle, privileged few at the expense of the many. It becomes clear that all these other things it is supposed to do are either left undone or twisted toward the real end of accumulation of wealth and power. The euphemisms change, but the behavior stays the same. Real problems get solved by real action, not political action.

Jan 20 2012:
Justen, I like your suggestion and I like the way you think: real positive action instead of blind dependence on something that may or may not help. I sense that we both share the same deep mistrust of corporations, but I would venture that I'm still idealistic enough to believe that government can be salvaged.

But I would love to learn to grow my own food. I have to confess I'm addicted to the local McDonald's and I've got to detox myself from my BigMacMonkeyonmyBack.

Jan 20 2012:
I grew up in the desert, so I'm very well acquainted with the difficulties and frustrations of growing one's own food in less than ideal circumstances. Now I live in a nice temperate forest where the biggest problems I run into are too much rain and not enough sun, which are much less difficult to overcome than their counterparts :)

That said, my big long-term project right now is to evaluate and share what I've learned about different food production techniques, and to build the tools necessary to help other people replicate what I've come up with. I don't like to hype things I haven't yet produced so I won't carry on about the plans. I do think it's an important project, because food independence is a great way to relieve poverty and dependence on traditional institutions.

The things that look most promising to me (and to just about everybody who gets in on this, apparently) are biointensive techniques and permaculture. In the former you're basically trying to build a feedback system where every growing cycle further enriches rather than depletes your soil, mostly through effective intervention and creating harmonious ecosystems in your garden. The latter is focused on plant-once, harvest indefinitely systems - perennial and self-renewing annual food crops. There's a lot in common between the two, and they're in some sense very complicated (thus my desire to build tools to help plan these things).

The good news is you can get started with a lot of it without worrying about the nitty-gritty. Look for the book "Square Foot Gardening", it breaks everything down to the simplest possible productive implementation. From experience, it's a little expensive if you follow it word for word; but you can cut corners (I did, and turned a profit in the first year). Also Google "Urban Homesteading" and "Grow Your Greens", both have lots of good info and will get you tied in with the zeitgeist of biointensive gardening.

Jan 18 2012:
Don: Execution in Texas was not an extrapolation I had in mind. But you do bring up an interesting point. The libertarian Wild West was big on executions. Really don’t mean to be hostile. Provocative, perhaps. Hostile, no.

I do enjoy debate. Preferably with those who hold a different opinion than I do. So far from wanting to antagonize you to the point of concluding the discussion, you should recognize that I value your interaction.

But back to my question. Instead of attempting to change a massive system which has limited support for your theories, why not focus on an experimental community of limited size to test your hypothesis?

Jan 18 2012:
Don, and Tim, lets not forget what the Utopian Wild West did to the indigenous people as part of the glorious 'homesteading' principle. Was the loss of their nomadic system and collective ownership of their country just collateral damage?

The homesteading principle does not recognise indigenous peoples' land claims therefore, Anarcho Capitalism, or libitarianism, is a racist and discriminatory policy.

Krisztian; metaphor or no, I think you are 'gilding the lilly' more than a bit. You cannot justify your comment re taxation as theft, and you have not. Restating it in more fruity terms hardly constitutes gaining ground in this discussion.

You can't extrapolate your model convincingly, and I have not noticed Don stepping up to do that either, or anyone else who has the temerity to advocate such an absurd model. (the model is absurd, not you Don, and not you either Krisztian).

People here are smart enough to concede to ideas outside our political views, if they can be demonstrated theoretically to work. Neither of you, especially you Krisztian, have ever demonstrated a convincing extrapolation of your model. To just simply have a big problem with society as a whole, with laws as a whole or to hate paying taxes, does not constitute an argument.

If you are looking for social models that embrace individual freedom and actually work, I suggest you look at the Anarchist movement. Do anarchists expect to pay tax Orlando?

Jan 19 2012:
joanne, what is that wild rant? we are the racist? good lord! would you spend some time understanding the opposing position before attacking it?

homesteading is by definition taking *unused* resources. it can not possibly hurt any indigenous people, nor anyone else, since they didn't use it anyway. taking land away from indigenous is *not* homesteading, it is theft.

taxation is not theft, you say. then tell me the difference, but let it be like two words, unless it is just muddying the waters. theft is taking property without consent. i think i'm pretty much in the position to tell whether gave my permission. i don't think you can doubt that they take my money. taxation is taking property without consent. therefore, theft.

i don't have to show a "model convincingly". in 1750, nobody could show you a "model convincingly" how can america function without slavery. yet many opposed it, and said, no matter what the alternative is, this is not right. we have to stop this. nobody would demonstrate in the 1700's that democracy can work. after all, how would a peasant or a servant know anything about politics? but they still made it real, because that was right.

you are, among many, in the denial phase. you just dig up excuses instead of thinking about it. you want to find something that allows you to not take it seriously. good luck with your plan, it will be harder and harder in the following years.

Jan 19 2012:
Ah but you do consent Kristian and that is the point. You live in a country that provides services through taxation. You do consent because you live there. You consent in a democratic country by voting, even if your particular view does not win. If what you want Kristian is really what you say, go and buy and island and live like Robinson Crusoe....oops, even he had his "man Friday."

Jan 19 2012:
michael, i do not recommend to use that interpretation of consent before the court. like "he gave his money with consent! i said money or die, and he gave the money. it is consent, mr judge!"

i disagree with taxation, and i disagree with most of the things the state does. the few things i agree with could be done otherwise. i can assure you, nothing in my country happens with my consent. i oppose it.

Jan 19 2012:
Krisztian, if you recognise that indigenous people in the US used vast tracts as hunting grounds and nomadic territory and this was a legitmate use, then that land should under the homesteading principle, be returned to them. If not then this comment is racist. 'homesteading is by definition taking *unused* resources. it can not possibly hurt any indigenous people, nor anyone else, since they didn't use it anyway.' because of the idea that indigenous people, do not use their land. because it is demonstrating the idea indigenous people's use of the land is in your eyes 'worthless'.

Jan 19 2012:
joanne, do you have problems telling apart words from their meaning? calling something "homesteading" will not make it actually homesteading. if i call taking my neighbor's tv set "finding", it is still just theft. if you take a land from someone, it is NOT homesteading. if someone calls it that, it won't change the meaning of the word. just makes him an idiot. it is really that hard?

Jan 19 2012:
The world in general preferred executions at that time, did it not? I recall a great number of people being regularly executed by the state existing in parallel to the "wild west". Shall we likewise indict your preferred society, since it was first demonstrated by slave keepers and misogynists (in Greece), and then later re-implemented by slave keepers and misogynists (in Rome), and then again re-implemented by slave keepers and misogynists (in America), based on the fact that its founders and early participants also engaged in pracitces we now find distasteful and immoral? Or, perhaps, does the merit of a philosophy itself stand apart from those who preach and attempt to practice it?

Jan 19 2012:
Hi Don, ' to begin with, I like the idea of you asking the "how" questions about a system without taxation' I waited with baited breath for the answer to my 'how' questions and they never materialised.

I have numerous examples taken from thousands years of civilisation to back up my ideas of working social models, and a lifetime spent studying them, what do you have? Again, the only thing you produced was another rant against 'we who have blind faith in the system' and 'the govt'. Your argument is getting thinner Don, instead of more substantial.

Please just give me a loose idea of how your society would function. Perhaps these specific questions might help you do that.
1. Law and order. who pays for it?
2. How would an election be organised?
3. When a woman decided to have a baby, would she still have her job when she is ready to return to work?
4. Who would support that edgy and socially critical artist who has no money of his/her own?
5. Research into diverging minority culture world views, or the 29.5 notes of the Navajo nose flute, who would pay for that?

To answer your general question Can you name a half dozen things that the US government does well, that couldn't be done better in the free market'. I don't think that is an important question for us. The only important question is, but would they do anything better than govt? Would they?

I am astounded when I hear people, who come from a country where the largest most corrupt oganisations originate, wanting their society to be run by private organisations, only three years into the aftermath of the worst global crash ever seen that was caused by those very entities and caused untold suffering around the world. How can anyone who has lived through that ever think that a company could be a more trustworthy alternative to good govt?

Sorry but it borders on a kind of blind religious madness. Do you really think you would be better off? Do you really think you wouldn't be taxed by private enterprise?

Jan 20 2012:
I am frequently robbed by private enterprise. I am only ever taxed by government. The difference between the two things, and perhaps the two of us, is that I do not tolerate or make excuses for the latter. I call a spade a spade. I am more interested in a world where we do not condemn actions by one group, only to praise the very same actions when engaged in by another group. In other words, I believe in equality.

Jan 19 2012:
Krisztian - I’m searching for the Stefan Molyneux video where he talks about Somalia, but haven’t found it yet. Will keep searching. In the process, I did come up with this one (which I think is one of his best):

Although I don’t agree with his world view, I do consider Stefan Molyneux a very thought provoking thinker. Though I always thought of him as a libertarian, he seems to define himself more as an anarchist.

Joanne and Michael - concerning your comments on the selfishness of Krisztian’s and Don’s viewpoints - I don’t think that they are any more selfish than you or me. Well, at least no more then me. I think they truly believe that the libertarian/anarchist approach would really result in a better life for most people from a pragmatic/utilitarian standpoint. And personally, I think they could be right, but that they are more likely wrong.

The problem is that their theories seem to be impeding progress in correcting the problems in government. If, in fact, they are wrong and they simply dismantle a partially functioning system, it could well set society back significantly. Which is why I keep harping on the idea that the theory should be tested on some smaller scale before deconstructing major socio-economic systems.

Jan 19 2012:
tim, thanks for the effort. if you could summarize briefly, might be enough.

i don't exactly believe that somalia is libertarian. but i'm not too much of an expert on somalia. some years ago there was a civil war. i doubt too many people cares about liberty and property in a war. but things might have changed in the last few years.

Jan 19 2012:
Sometimes partial function is less desirable than zero function. From one perspective a government we're all familiar with, the United States, is fully functional in amassing the wealth necessary to murder tens of thousands of innocent people in an ongoing global war, and caging millions of other innocent people (or, at least, innocent of "malum in se" vs "malum prohibitum"). It has been very effective as promoting the interests and profit of its favored institutions. It is not so effective at relieving poverty (which has been on the rise), creating opportunity (which has been on the decline), protecting the rights of minorities (which it has never done very well at all), preventing crime (increases and decreases in law enforcement efforts appear to have little or no correlation with crime rates), ensuring economic stability (lulz), or promoting the values of its population (uh, such as they are).

These are all claimed functions of this government, and it's certainly functioning "in part". I am just not so sure the functions it's performing are preferable to total non-performance. Are you? Be honest.

For all that could be said about the grinding poverty, famine, and violence in Somalia, most Somalians seem to believe they are better off without the additional rapine and murder perpetrated by their former government; and better off without the additional conflict generated by their current aspirational (if not artificial) government. The statistics tend to agree.

Is "working, but poorly" really the best that we can hope for in less blighted lands? Or might we be better off without a bit of the "work" that this government is doing? After all it is not we, but they, who insist on the "package deal". If I could decline to pay for the mass murder while continuing to pay for, say, NASA, I would be inclined to do so. Would you? What do you think would happen if that were possible?

Jan 20 2012:
Hi Tim, I checked through my comments and I cannot find any reference to calling anyone selfish.

I think I used the words 'violently facist' to categorise the homesteading principle. That is not a reflection on the character of either Don, or Krisztian, who may in fact be completely gentle and altruistic people.

I have questioned Krisztians's motives in other threads for following the Anarcho Capitalist faith, and been chastised for it, although I do think it quite reasonable to question a human being's motives, if they follow facistic ideology, because of the potential harm such an ideology would generate, should it ever be brougnt to fruition.

Jan 20 2012:
Anarchism is an interesting and peaceful movement, I agree with many of the principles and find some of the models, believable. There are factories running on anarchist principles, and they work. Liberal socialism is another word for the same thing, anarcho capitalism or liberal capitalism has no relationship to this movement except that they both want to abolish the state.

Jan 20 2012:
Joanne: I don't really like the words "socialism", "capitalism", "liberalism", "conservatism" or other political labels. They seem to have as many meanings as there are mouths pronouncing them. "Anarchism" has at least some precision: we can say without much argument that it means "without rulers". But there are certainly a lot of models and strategies for achieving and sustaining a world without rulers, and many motives both noble and ignoble.

In general, it seems to me that many people are after the same things. They want peace. They want security. They want the freedom to express themselves. They do not want to have to fear the institutions they rely on to provide for them. In many cases, they want to feel as if they have provided for themselves - they want personal independence. They want opportunity - to advance, and to sustain, with as few artificial and unnecessary obstacles as possible. I think I can say this without risking over-generalization. These are all good things, and almost everybody who wants them is trying to do something to get them.

The real question is, who is succeeding? Can we demonstrate a clear line of cause and effect between action and outcome? Can we document it, adapt it to local circumstances, and replicate it? I look around at all the movements I know of and all the points in history where a change has happened, and I see the same patterns: traditional institutions vested and entrenched in the status quo. Arguments over whether they can be fixed, or whether they ought to be ousted and replaced with new institutions. And then on the perimeter there are people who aren't too interested in arguing or struggling to grab the reins of power - through reform or through revolution. They see problems, they solve them. Abolitionists built the underground railroad. Cypherpunks built cryptographic tools. Anti-IP activists built p2p networks. They got results *first*, and the institutions caught up later (or are still trying to catch up).

Jan 19 2012:
Krisztian: OK. I guess it was an exaggeration to say that Stefan labeled Somalia a libertarian nirvana. He actually gave an interesting line of reasoning comparing Somalia during a period of time when it had a government to a later period when no formal government existed. Apparently the government acted as a kind of mafia, funnelling foreign funds to their cronies and being opposed by local militias. Without a government private commerce sprouted up all over and people’s needs were being better met. At least that was the discourse as I remember it. Will let you know if I rediscover it.

Jan 14 2012:
At this point the only way things are going to change is honestly through some sort of revolution. I know what I'm saying sounds somewhat extravagant but we are at the point where people, although unhappy, are comfortable with where they are at and this is the main reason as to why many individuals in the U.S. continue to think that an incremental approach to such an issue is going to be effective when in all actuality it is not.

An incremental approach to such an issues is exactly what those in power want. As Deb Burks rightly pointed out "Divide and conquer is the way to get power". Incrementalism only creates more conflict and simply voting for elected officials is ineffective given that many of them do not represent THE PEOPLE.

To answer your question of "How do we get corporations out of government" the answer to the question is simple: change the system and with this change, create a society that is not reliant on corporations or government but something that is accessible and participatory.

Jan 15 2012:
Honestly this is the reason as to why I go on TED as well...with all the people that feel the way that you and I do about such matters, eventually we should be able to change things...I'm just under the impression that it may take a lot longer than we would want to....

Jan 15 2012:
haha I can only hope so... my main concern about talking about anarchism is if people actually take me seriously. I mean I'm a 22 year old African American Male. My age may not be too much of a concern but you do not find too many African American's in the U.S. who claim to be both an atheist, let alone an anarchist. Most African Americans in the U.S. are very democratic, w/christian values. I've been called white washed many times by my counter parts for adopting what they would call "punk rock ideology"

I'll be honest, I think I was one of the few African Americans that had trouble with Obama getting elected. I was really troubled by the celebration. I mean it was a great moment in American history for African Americans but the focus seemed to be much about Obama's race as opposed to his politics and that really concerned me because I dd not know the true motive as to why he was elected (I can at least say that the fact that many people want him out of office tells me the focus was not about politics)

For me the election was no different than any other being that I knew things would not change and that Obama is just there to still bail out the corporations.....the fact that the topic of this thread is "HOW DO WE GET CORPORATIONS OUT OF GOVERNMENT" means that this is still an issue and one that Obama has not intentions of getting rid of....

I've said this before and I'll say it again: the only way things will change is through the people, not the politicians.

Do not get me wrong, I have learned a lot from you as well as others on here...Thank Apollo for TED

Jan 16 2012:
I still think America is best left in the hands of the Democrats, that these people are the best force for good to date until people can acquire a system which is more like full proportional democracy. The Democrats are the lesser of several evils! Corporations in govt, is a wider issue and needs to be dealt with, breaking this power grid will not be easy, and impossible with a Republican president.

I think Obama has been a good president, but he has been hamstrung (is that an idiom you recognise 'hamstrung'?) by the heavily biased right wing electoral system.I think you make a good point about Obama's election being too focussed on his race, however I was one of those who watched teary eyed and grateful, to see a person from a minority background, and on the left, elected to that high office. I would like to see him reelected with more of a mandate from the people. It does not look likely. Usually leaders who have to manage a crisis, as he was left to do in 2008, have to wear the flak, and he will not survive that I do not think.

Your age, your race, do not matter outside the U.S. and you will see that immediately if you go and live in another country for a few years. I would choose Berlin, or Copenhagen, what great cities to be young in!.

Jan 16 2012:
@ Orlando, I'm also African American and non religious. It's kind of funny you mention the correlation between African American culture and the Christian faith, as I am the son of a preacher. Lol, just thought that was worth pointing out. Though I understand your sentiment in regards to Obama being elected, I must confess that like Joanne, I got a little misty myself. Not because a black man was elected President of the United States, but because it was a stepping stone to the realization of equality.

We are all equal. Including those politicians we all like to pile the blame on. They are us... We are them... They represent the stranglehold corporations have, not only on American culture and values, but more importantly, on the values of humanity. I, however, have the utmost confidence in humanity, and believe we are capable of just about anything we put our minds to. I just hope we pull our heads out in time for me to get to see it :-) Selfish ways die hard, what can I say...

Jan 16 2012:
Hi Orlando, I am responding here to your other post re socialism and anarchism. I agree with you that one of the reasons why there has been so much disinformation spread about these movements is because; 'anarchist and socialist thinking are major threats to corporations and th(eir) power.'

I cannot answer the question, why I am interested in world politics, I think I have mentioned I am a student of the rise of facism and violence in human societies it is a hobby of mine. I have been interested in social theories since I was quite young, in particular matriarchies. I am interested in the mechanics of how and why McCartherism (which you referred to) and movements like that, appear in societies. If we understand how this happens, then we have the tools to avoid similar situation, so people do not have to be jailed, or worse, for their beliefs or their race, or their gender.

Well if you don't enter politics, I hope you at least plan to write a book at some stage. Perhaps an anthology of some of the great comments we read all the time on TED.

I'll respond to both of your post on this reply, that way we do not have to go and hunt for each others comments....

As much as I criticize american politics, I do think the democrats are the lesser of two evils but nonetheless I really do think there really is no difference between the two..I mean on paper, their ideologies are different but they really do support the same people and are funded by the same sponsors or programs or corporations...Corporations in government is indeed a wider issue and democratic policy is geared more towards the people than republicans but to be quite honest, I do not think the democrats are capable of doing such a thing due to the fact that they are not aggressive enough and the fact that most democratic policies such as universal health care, which Obama proposed is deemed to be such a bad thing......

In regards to Obama, I mean of course I was happy because it did show that all the hard work that my ancestors put in to give me the opportunities and liberties that I have now really did pay off but at the same time, there is a time for celebration and a time to get the economy in order. I mean people were celebrating way before he was elected so that was a major concern for me...As far as being a good president, I would prefer Obama over most and the media does distort him in the wrong way but I do not think he has done much (although he has good intentions) and I have never heard of the word "hamstrung" lol

I do not think I'll even try to enter politics but I would not mind giving talks and debates about such issues. You have interesting hobbies similar to my own...but it would be interesting to know why people panic when they hear communism, anarchism, socialism, McCartherism, etc because, as you mentioned, if we do understand how they emerge we can prevent another Gulag or Red Scare from happening.

Jan 16 2012:
Yes Orlando, I agree with your post, re the Democrats. Everytime a Democrat is elected I wait and hope to see social change, and always find I am bitterly disappointed at the end of the term, at how much ground is usually lost, and how little has been gained toward equality, world peace and sustainability. Our version of the Democrats is the NZ Labour party, today they are more right wing than ever before in their history. I too find few worthy alternatives when it comes to electing people to take over the stewardship of our country.

This thread, and its question has been interesting as people are offering solutions. Some people, Paul and others are talking about a new American economic model that would be more equitable but still acceptable to a culture that places such a high value on individualism and personal freedom. I think this is an exciting idea.

I think some Anarchist ways of doing things (not the absurd and catastrophic anarcho capitalist principles) could be part of that model, because of the freedom from state control inherent in anarchist ways of doing things. There are some good successful business models, based on these principles, already working around the world. I have heard of factories, very successful, where the workers trade labour for shares in the enterprise. It is their business, they also own and control it. Of course we would not be able to use the terms 'anarchist' or 'socialist' but some of the solutions might actually work.

It is not outside the real of possibility Orlando. What needs to change is people everywhere need to understand that accountability to the common good is the cornerstone of all societies, whether we think so or not. This is what Occupy, began to dialogue. We should not give that power away. We can shape our own societies for the common good and we should do so, not allow a bigger entity, whether it be state or private enterprise, to do that instead.

Jan 11 2012:
The Government and Corporations both get their power from people. We need to rethink how much power we are really giving both. Aside from grilling corporations, there is another more long term way of going about this.

With regards to corporations gaining rewards from the government, what if there were more corporations? What if we start buying from smaller business entities who provide the same goods and services? We raise these small shops and lower the corporations. If firms are more equal than they are today, they will have less power.

I'm not saying that we can perfectly equalize them, but I am saying that we have the power to cut the big boys up into smaller manageable pieces.

Comment deleted

Jan 11 2012:
If you remove the government distortions, the free market will reward those businesses that conduct themselves in the public interest. Those that don't will wither. Trying to externally control them is coercive.

Jan 11 2012:
Can you show me with clear historical examples where and when that has actually taken place? What were the companies and how did they whither? How did some benevolent hand enter the corporate picture?

Jan 12 2012:
We're not going to try to externally control them. We're actually pushing for Perfect Competition. Which is what the free market is all about. What if we make them compete even for the government's support?
Better goods and services.

Let them lobby all they want. What matters is that we unite in knowing what's good for us.
Let's not help them divide us when were trying to divide them. Coz' their purposes should be separate.

Jan 17 2012:
Hi Mohammad, we fight! :) Still saying, the big boys and the big girls, will not let us. It is not discouraging, it is reality. They will not let us. It is too big and too powerful. Humans are too lazy, too really fight. With Respect to the Forum! :)

Jan 16 2012:
Hi Pierre, I agree, legislating to limit size, as in the case in at least France, but probably other Eurozone countries too I am sure, is the only way to bring these out-of-control huge corporate structures into a more manageable framework of influence. At the moment, some are too huge, they can influence anything, an election, an entire culture, a monetary system. This is too much power in the hands of an entity which only wants to sell products for profit.

Don, I disagree, and this issue is too important for a mere theoretical extrapolations to suffice. I too would like to see one example, just one, of a similar system working somewhere in the world, in present day, or anytime in history.

Jan 12 2012:
I very much like your idea, because it actually introduces into practical application this American belief in free market competition: if we truly want to lessen the influence of any corporation, we have to stop feeding the corporation with our money. If every single person in the US would, for example, shop for their groceries from a local farmer's market, and not from a corporate grocery store, the farmers and consumers would benefit and the corporations would not.

This speaks to the idea that instead of attacking corporations - we supplant them with better choices. We replace them by supporting more competitors. Thank you, Mohammad, for an insightful point.

Jan 19 2012:
Yes. I am pretty certain that we are going to have to unify as a globe of people in order to begin to end the conflicts for "needs".

I don't think a better vision of the future exists where humanity is not cooperating and working together to solve problems. That is what the great philosophers, Big Bird, Bert and Ernie even the grouch came around to this idea by the end.

So I think we should do that first by finishing what Martin Luther King Jr. started over 50 years ago and become other centered instead of self centered. I believe it is obvious that we are headed in this global community direction (even after a final war, there will be peace). It is time now to make commitments to one another as individual global citizens in order to balance the power of the greedy to the needy and skip this violence we see all around us.

From this global point of view we can design larger communities that are sustainable and interlock them together with a system of distributing whatever it is that may need distributing. (maybe travelers as well)

These types of ideas have been presented with more complete details and plans and I think it is time to design a more efficient lifestyle that actually attempts to leaves no one behind.

It's time for the global community to believe that if you are a human being then you are an equal.

Then its time to make sure everybody has a plate at the dinner table, a comfortable place to rest and an opportunity to learn and study anything.

This type of lifestyle is much more mature than Corpratization as making a profit and treating people equally are two different ideas that don't work together.

@ Michael M You may recognize this comment from the other thread but I altered it a bit and thought it fit here too. Haha efficiency and all

But I wholeheartedly agree that if we are to limit the influence of corporations, then one way to do it is to recreate society in an image where we look after each other more than we look after ourselves, and if we are to provide services for each other, from our own resources, then we will see that the corporate model does not fit in with a society that prides itself on concern for the basic needs of all.

Jan 21 2012:
I would never label myself as an idealist but I do seek answers that will promote an ideal situation in which humans can flourish so I guess it's not a stretch.(don't tell anyone I said that)

It will be a lot of work but then again life is a lot of work and since humanity is not sure what life is all about, we can choose to create the society where we look after one another.

The corporate model or Economic Systems surely do not take care of the needs of all. They are pyramid schemes designed to pull wealth to the top. I don't have much of a problem with that until it comes to the problem of world hunger, that's when economics get in the way.

When unconditional help is not economically feasible, money is a problem. Money seems to provide for us a sense of security (which is a basic need). The more money you have, however, the more protection you need so you end up less secure. We need to work globally on making people feel more secure like we're all on the same team. Treating all people as equals will go a long way towards making people feel secure.

Rant rant rant (sorry) It's all been said before. I guess it's ok to rant here in blogs. haha

Jan 20 2012:
You may or may not be shocked to discover that many people are already doing what you propose, and not merely talking about it; and that effort has culminated, thus far, in the very objects and ideas that permitted you to post this comment. They are called, in part, the open source movement; and in part, the anarchists; and in part, entrepreneurs; and in part, system D; and many other things. They do not talk about what should be done, so much as they talk about what is being done and actually do it. Or perhaps I should say we.

We've been doing this for quite a while now. We had a hand in the first worker's unions and mutual aid networks, and we practically built the internet as you know it. We played a large part in developing biointensive agriculture and permaculture and spreading it around the earth. Now we're building tools, physical tools, outside the restraints of state monopolies and we're giving them to people who need them. One of my absolute favorite projects right now is Open Source Ecology, but it's a drop in an ocean of things going on just below the surface of mainstream politics.

Progress is happening. The global evolution is happening. There will be no vote on it. You have no say in what we do, whether for or against. You only have say in what you do. You have not been invited. You must invite yourself, and you can only do that by participating. Will you join us, or will you watch from the sidelines? Or, worse yet, will you stand in opposition?